2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (8 pages)

            Janet Carver appeals her sentences following her guilty pleas to identity theft and second-degree theft.  She contends the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences and improperly ordered pecuniary damages for charges not included in Carver’s plea of guilty.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court gave sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, but the pecuniary damages portion of the sentencing order does not comply with Iowa law.  We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (6 pages)

            Darryn Lyn Dugan appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after pleading, contending the court abused its discretion when sentencing him by admitting unauthenticated evidence, failing to consider certain mitigating factors, failing to follow the recommendation made by the presentence investigation report, and declining to suspend incarceration in favor of probation.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence or imposing incarceration, we affirm Dugan’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J. (15 pages)

            Timothy Doyle appeals his sentences after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1)(b)(2)(d) (2022).  On appeal, he argues that (1) the prosecutor breached the plea agreement; and (2) the district court did not adequately state its reasoning for imposing incarceration and consecutive sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: After our review of the record, we affirm Doyle’s sentences.  We find that (1) the prosecutor adequately remedied his initial misstatement in conveying the sentencing recommendation contemplated by Doyle’s plea agreement; and (2) the district court sufficiently stated its reasons for imposing incarceration and consecutive sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (11 pages)

            Tara Link appeals the decree granting her and Nicholas Rosenow joint physical care of their child.  OPINION HOLDS: I. We agree that the record shows that joint physical care serves B.L.’s best interests and affirm the physical care provisions of the parties’ decree.  II. We also agree that the record shows that hyphenating both parents’ surnames is in the child’s best interests and affirm the provision of the decree changing the child’s name.  III. Because the record supports an award of Nicholas’s appellate attorney fees but we have no affidavit of attorney fees, we remand to the district court to determine the amount of his appellate attorney fees and enter judgment against Tara in a reasonable amount.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, DeDra Schroeder, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Ezekiel Larson appeals his sentence following a guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: Larson cannot establish that the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Justin R. Wyatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (4 pages)

            Jennifer Archer appeals the revocation of her deferred judgment and conviction for third-degree burglary, arguing that the district court violated her state and federal due-process rights by doing so without providing a hearing or a statement of the factual basis for the revocation.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court held a revocation hearing—at the same time as the sentencing hearing for the convictions on the new charges that were the basis for revocation.  And the written record of the hearing provides a sufficient statement of the basis for the revocation—especially since Archer did not contest that basis at the hearing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (22 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four of her children.  The mother’s daughter also appeals termination of parental rights as to her.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling because we find (1) the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction; (2) clear and convincing evidence supported Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2023) for termination and the termination is in the children’s best interest; (3) the mother did not preserve her claim that the juvenile court erred in declining to grant her a six-month extension for unification; (4) the GAL’s failure to comply with statutory duties did not amount to reversible error; (5) no structural error occurred; and (6) the mother’s constitutional arguments were waived on appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, Peter B. Newell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and requesting a six‑month extension to work towards reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Having found the statutory grounds satisfied and no extension is warranted, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to M.T.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024).  She argues the State failed to prove the statutory ground for termination and termination is not in the best interests of the children.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude clear and convincing evidence exists in this record to support the statutory ground for termination and termination is in the best interests of the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to termination or to establish a guardianship in lieu of termination.  And we do not grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old and three-year-old daughters.  She argues that terminating her rights was not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: After our independent review of the record, we reach the same conclusion as the juvenile court.  As that court found, termination of the mother’s parental rights is the children’s “best chance at long-term stability, growth, and healthy development.”  So, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County, Patrick W. Greenwood and Monty Franklin, Judges.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her five children as children in need of assistance, their continued removal from her custody, and the out-of-state placement of the oldest child.  She also contends the State has not made reasonable efforts toward reunification.  Finally, she asserts that returning her children to her custody is in their best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State did not offer clear and convincing evidence to support adjudication on two of three grounds, we reverse in part and affirm in part.